SOLDIERS SPEAK OUT ON SYRIA: 'We Are Stretched Thin, Tired, And Broke'

After President Obama said the United States “should” strike Syria during a Saturday speech in the Rose Garden, Republican Justin Amash (R-Mich.) took to Twitter to dispute that claim with comments from those who would likely carry out that order.

“I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces,” Amash tweeted. “The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria.”

I’ve reached out to my own sources who are either veterans or currently on active duty in the military, and asked them to share their thoughts on whether we should, or should not, intervene in the two-year-old Syrian civil war. Most have responded with a resounding no.

The general theme of most emails bring up personal experiences in Iraq or Afghanistan, the lack of a clear objective or end state in striking Syria, and the very muddled line between anti-government rebels and al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists.

While President Obama has repeatedly said there would be no “boots on the ground,” many remain fearful that limited strikes could have consequences that lead to further action.

Here are two emails I received, and I am reprinting them here in full, only lightly edited for clarity.

From an active-duty soldier, rank of Sergeant First Class:

I have to say I am fairly conflicted about Syria. My logic is generally fighting itself and my personal feelings towards taking action.

Part of me says that we need to take a stand against chemical weapons. President Obama announced that using chemicals weapons was the line, and Assad crossed it. The fact that even the French President has called for “proportional and firm action” says something. I’m not sure how the UN can stand by while Syria kills 1300 citizens, including women and children. The line was drawn, and Assad crossed it.

But does the U.S. always have to be the one to deliver consequences? We are stretched thin, tired, and broke. My personal feeling is no.

I’m more inclined to be ok with our involvement if we’re talking about actions by the Air Force and the Navy. We are too tired to put boots on the ground. But as an Explosive Ordnance Disposal tech, I know what would go into disarmament of chemical weapons.

And that’s just not a job I want anything to do with. And I don’t want my Soldiers doing it.

Not only is the process long and exhausting, it’s dangerous in different ways than we have been dealing with.

My gut is telling me that we don’t need to be World Police. And if we don’t have the UN for back up, it’s just too much for us to take on. We still haven’t finished Afghanistan; I just don’t see how we can take on another war, or even military actions that don’t affect us.

I can’t stand to sit by and watch innocent lives be taken in such a horrible manner, but we can’t really do this alone.

But if we don’t do something, who will? How many more innocent people have to die before anyone else will take action?

In mid-March of 2003, I was a 19-year-old Private First Class waiting to cross the border into Iraq. I was aware that there was a significant portion of veterans (mostly Vietnam-era) back home who were fundamentally opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Like the majority of my peers and superiors, I didn’t really care nor did I give it much thought. We just wanted our war.

A little over 10 years later, the majority of individuals in my generation have recognised the Iraq folly for what it was. I’m still proud of my service, as are my buds, but we understand that Iraq was completely unnecessary and cost way too much money and, more importantly, American lives.

We witnessed our politicians and countrymen send us to war on a surge of emotion and quickly forget about us for nearly a decade. We had the training and capabilities to deal with Iraq, but were set up for failure by timid members of Congress and the Executive branch who futilely attempted to conduct a PC war.

The worst part about this Syria debacle, among many things, is how closely it resembles Iraq. Those Vietnam veterans who warned us about disastrous results in Iraq were doing so based off their experience in a war that, contrary to popular belief, was vastly different from our war and was separated by at least two decades.

Many veterans of Iraq are still in their twenties and have a firsthand understanding of Arab political issues. The complicated things we faced with Syria’s next door neighbours is freshly ingrained in our memories. How quickly the American people and our political leaders forget.

Our involvement in Syria is so dangerous on so many levels, and the 21st century American vet is more keen to this than anybody. It boggles my mind that we are being ignored.

My anger over this issue has actually made me seriously comment on our foreign policy for the first time since 2006 when I was honorably discharged after three stints in Iraq and subsequently watched it continue for nearly another six years.

I’m sickened that we’re putting ourselves in a position for another prolonged war where the American people will quickly forget about the people fighting it.

Are you a military veteran? Send me an email with your thoughts on possible military action in Syria (anonymity protected if preferred) — [email protected]

i am a veteran and i say no to any action in Syria it does not serve any american interest nor are they a threat to the U.S. let the Arab league and surrounding nations deal with them if they choose we are not the worlds police look at the chaos left behind in Iraq after we left Afghanistan will be the same after we with draw

US vet here, no one that I know wants to get involved in this Civil War -- Active, Reserve, or Veteran. This is a political punt to try to score one for the administration, and service members know it. It is ironic that all the hippies aren't speaking out against it as much as when Bush was going buck wild. Double standard, much?

Marine Vet here. The "hippies" are going nuts about this bullshit attempt to involve indiscriminate military force in Syria. There usually isn't a double standard about violent conflict when it comes to "hippies" or people like Smedley Butler. Ironically though, your outrage over conflict has probably depended upon the administration and ideology that gets spoon-fed. As a disillusioned vet I realized we lost all of our credibility of coming to the aid of slaughtered innocent civilians around the world when we did nothing for the people of Rwanda or Cambodia. The only reason we are talking about intervening in Syria is because the Middle East is "of important American interest". Has there ever been a time when we have gone to the aid of people solely for their interest and protection. And you can't use the Jews and the Holocaust because that shit was all over the news for a decade before we entered WWII, and we were just as anti-semitic as Germans were. General Patton even questioned which side of the war we were supposed to side with. As long as we need to satisfy our selfish needs, you can count on the fact that any intervention we involve ourselves with, will screw over the inhabitants of said country. But if you are ok with that, then there is really no reason why you shouldn't want an intervention in Syria. We need more stability in the region. We need a pliant regime to coexist next to Iraq to give ourselves further advantage over Iran. We need to be able to prod the economic potential of Syria and we need a regime that will be open to our business interests and allow tax breaks, and economic safe havens, and maybe even cheap, pliable labor. We need your boots on the ground to break the will of any person that might stand in the way of our new regime as we develop it through the process of democracy. We need your boots on the ground to assist in democratic elections and ensure that only the right candidates make it through the process. We need your boots on the ground to safeguard American interests as they decide the risks are worth their direct involvement in the country. We need your boots on the ground to create violent instability to further justify the presence of more US assets to control the situation. I don't know what the hell you think you signed up for but you better get your damn boots on the ground in Syria soldier.

i was in the military for desert shield and desert storm. one of the problems that America has is the fact that we try to play big brother to the whole world. this is a big drain on the economy and one of the things that makes all of these 3rd world countries hate the USA. Our troops are spread too thin. We dont have the money to fight another war. All of our reserve troops are overseas fighting already. What are we going to do if we get an attack on American soil? Its time to bring our troops home before its too late. going to fight in syria without the approval of the UN is not a good idea. especially when russia, iran, and china are all saying for us to stay out of it. also the rebels that we are funding have already admitted that they were the ones using chemical weapons. not the syrian military. these rebels that are being funded by the USA are known terrorists.